May 6, 2008 (LPAC) -- As was reported last week, Russian and Iranian national security officials were working out a new package of solutions for the Iranian nuclear power/uranium enrichment program to be presented, through the Russian foreign minister, to the 5+1 meeting (5 permanent members of the security council + Germany) who have been negotiating with Iran. The Iranian-Russian package would also have included issues where Iran is being implicated as playing an obstructive role vis-a-vis the U.S. in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini told reporters that the Russians were informed of the details of the Iranian package which includes political, strategic and economic proposals. No details have been released on the nature of the Iranian offers or what was discussed by the 5+1 states in their meeting held last friday.

In a clear sabotage attempt, the British Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, John Duncan, came out preemptively to denounce Iran and falsely claim that the 5+1 group declared that Iran's nuclear program has created serious problems. Duncan further lied: The 5+1 message to Iran is that it should live up to its commitments.. Iran should either respond positively to the proposed incentives or it will face more punishment by the Security Council.

These so-called incentives had already been rejected in 2006 by the Iranian government, when former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, at the time heading the EU presidency, gave Iran an offer they could not accept. The offer was that the Iranians must abandon all uranium fuel enrichment activities. At the time the Iranians responded by suspending all collaboration with the EU and the IAEA, creating the crisis which has been the pretext for the British/Cheney cabal to bomb Iran. That was the purpose of the British offer, then.

Yesterday again, British Foreign Minister David Miliband said the foreign ministers of the U.S., Britain, Russia, China, France, and Germany agreed on Friday to offer Iran a new package of incentives to curtail its nuclear program. Miliband said the group reviewed and updated an offer made to Iran in June 2006, knowing well that the Iranians would not accept it.

Enraged by this act of sabotage, the Russian and Chinese Permanent Representatives at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament in Geneva said the statements by the British envoy do not represent the views of China and Russia. According to Tehran Times, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov said, the 5+1 in London agreed to use political and diplomatic solutions to resolve Iran's nuclear issue and therefore it was decided to propose a new package of incentives to Iran. The reality of the 5+1 meeting in London was just the opposite of what John Duncan depicted it as, Antonov added. He said every delegation can have its own views but when they are talking on behalf of others about a sensitive issue like Iran's nuclear program they should not distort the realities. Antonov added that Britain has not been given a mission by the 5+1 group to make such statements in this meeting.

The Chinese ambassador Wang Chen also confirmed Antonov's statements, saying, the participants at the London meeting welcomed diplomatic solutions, therefore the British representative's remarks are not consistent with the realities of the London meeting. The Chinese ambassador also expressed hope that a comprehensive solution will be found for Iran's nuclear issue and negotiations will be resumed soon.

One early indication of what the British are hoping to get from this new provocation, came on Monday the 5th of May, when the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hosseini announced that the Iranian government has decided to suspend its diplomatic talks with the U.S. representatives in Iraq. This was the only direct diplomatic channel between Iran and the U.S. to resolve disputes between the two sides. Now that window is closed. If the British are not directly attacked and exposed for this type of trickery and isolated from any diplomatic negotiations on any issue of geopolitical significance, WWIII would not be far away.